Matthew England will talk about climate models this Sunday 23rd August in the Powerhouse Museum as part of the Ultimo Science Festival. The press release says:

Climate modeller challenges skeptics

With the Government’s emissions trading legislation now delayed, one of Australia’s leading climate scientists, UNSW Professor Matthew England has thrown down the gauntlet to climate skeptics to update their thinking.

“Those that deny basic climate science question climate modelling and fundamental climate physics. But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant. Most of their claims have long been refuted by the scientific community, the national academies, and so on. Others need no refuting: they fly in the face of basic geophysical measurements, or they are so appallingly wrong they go against simple high-school physics,” England says.


The award-winning oceanographer, who is co-director of UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre, will discuss the whys and wherefores of climate modelling and provide the most up-to-date climate predictions out to the year 2100 (since the IPCC report of 2007), at the Ultimo Science Festival on Sunday.

“This talk will show the step by step of how the models work, how they have evolved over the past 50 years, where they can be trusted, and what their uncertainties are. I will also address many of the skeptics’ claims and show why they are wrong,” England says.

But the latest research is not a pretty prediction, according to England.

“We need a fairly dramatic change in the way we power this planet, away from the old carbon-intensive technologies and into a new era of clean energy. We need to do this very quickly to give us any chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Alarmingly, even at that level of warming we will lose most of the world’s coral reefs and around 20 to 30 per cent of species will face potential extinction. The Greenland ice sheet is likely to disintegrate completely if we warm in excess of 2.5 degrees C, that’s a seven-metre sealevel rise” he says.

England says we have already emitted half the greenhouse gases we can if we are to have a reasonable chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Every year that there is inaction, this locks in a greater level of climate change. Climate change is now unavoidable, but we can determine, to some extent, what level of change we are prepared to commit to,” says England. “If we care about minimising the impact on heat extremes, bushfires, human health, our ecosystems and our capacity to produce food and have a secure freshwater supply, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in the next decade and then decline rapidly.”

Comments

  1. #1 zoot
    September 22, 2009

    Girma, please answer Bernard’s questions.

  2. #2 Girma
    September 22, 2009

    You worte, Girma you are responsible for promoting a laissez-faire system that is blind to the (or acts like there is no) power difference between a 9 year old child and a multinational corporation.

    I reject shifting of responsibility. The 9 year old is under the care of an adult, who must be able to decide. No circular arguments please. If you don’t want to buy something from somewhere, go somewhere else. In trade, no force is involved. The only force is in government legislation. If a government enacts a legislation I don’t agree with were can I go? That is the difference between trade and force.

    How can I exploit someone if I persuade (not force) him to come to my lunch bar to buy junk food? Janet, that person has the option of buying or not buying, there is no force involved. There is no exploitation. Exploitation is when force is involved.

    I have looked at the science. I am convinced with my all being that the consensus that CO2 is causing global warming is wrong. Science is not based on the majority vote. The majority could be wrong as happened several time in the history of science. The [world was warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/to:1878/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1878/trend) from 1850 to 1878 at the rate of 0.31 deg C/100 years! There is monotonous cooling since 2005. Based on historical patterns, I believe we have entered a couple of decades of cooling, and I expect the anomalies to go into the negative. My assumption of repeating of mean global temperature patterns will be proved right or wrong in a couple of decades. If temperature anomalies go into the neagative, I will be right. If the anomaly returns to the value of 1998 in the next decade then I will be wrong. In this case, the pattern of the mean global temperature has changed fundamentally, and I will join the AWG camp with my tails between my legs. Janet, it is just utterly unbelievable to me. It just does not add up! You may say, to reduce CO2 emission is good, but not because of global warming.

  3. #3 Dave
    September 22, 2009

    Girma:

    > I have looked at the science.

    And proven time and again that you do not even begin to understand it.

    > I am convinced with my all being that the consensus that CO2 is causing global warming is wrong.

    Despite a mulltitude of cast-iron corrections to your “analysis”. Corrections for which you have supplied no answer beyond your unshakeable faith in your own position, restatement of figures that have been shown to be wrong in ever louder and more shrill tones. You ignore mathematics, reason and logic that disagrees with you, and focus instead on your personal belief.

    And yet you label AGW science a “religion”.

    You hypocritical little numpty.

  4. #4 Girma
    September 22, 2009

    What the apolitical science says about CO2 driven global warming:

    According to the Paper by [Nathan Mantua, Ph. D., Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm)

    The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, is often described as a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability (Zhang et al. 1997).

    Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century (e.g. Mantua et al. 1997, Minobe 1997): cool PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while warm PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990’s. Recent changes in Pacific climate suggest a possible reversal to cool PDO conditions in 1998.

    The above is exactly what I independently observed from the data. What it is saying is that the PDO are long-lived. What the Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles tells you is that the duration of the cooling or warming phase of each PDO is couple of decades long. As a result, since we already have a decade long cooling phase, this must be a cooling PDO phase, and based on historical patterns, it must continue for another decade or two.

    That is what the science says. Our prediction will be proved beyond doubt if the anomaly goes into negative values in the next decade. [I have looked at the science.](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure2MyAnomalyPaper.gif) CO2 driven global warming appears to be wrong.

    I will prepare a new chart that show both the historical global temperatures for the previous century and my predictions for the next century based on the historical pattern.

  5. #5 Mark Byrne
    September 22, 2009

    Girma @1900, we’ve checked your tests. They are not appropriate. The temperature is not normally distributed and because [warming is accelerating](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1930/trend:1930/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/trend) means that neither are the residual (of a 160 year linear trend) normally distributed. (That is the reason for the large gap between your linear trend a the observed temperature at the beginning and end of the series).

    Bernad has conclusively demonstrated the residual are not normally distibuted, if you couldn’t work it our from looking at the data.

  6. #6 Badger3k
    September 22, 2009

    “Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself.”

    This must explain the many extinctions that occur through history – these are the animals that have automatically adapted to the natural surroundings they happened to find themselves in.

    Not.

    Whoever said that bit clearly has no understanding of evolution, ecology, hell, even basic biology. I guess maybe, to be generous, the author wasn’t an ignorant fecker, but meant to say “bacteria” instead of “animals.” That at least makes more sense.

  7. #7 Janet Akerman
    September 22, 2009

    I worte,
    >>Girma you are responsible for promoting a laissez-faire system that is blind to the (or acts like there is no) power difference between a 9 year old child and a multinational corporation.
    I reject shifting of responsibility.

    Girma replied:
    >*The 9 year old is under the care of an adult, who must be able to decide. No circular arguments please. If you don’t want to buy something from somewhere, go somewhere else….*

    Girma, you’ve failed to address my points, you are prompting a system than lies to the vulnerable (through marketing propaganda) and children cannot be held responsible for the quality of their parenting. Instead as a society, we must curb the incentives to exploit the vulnerable.

    More so, the saturation of propaganda has become almost ubiquitous. Hence a parent now risks socially isolating children if they deny them access to media swamped with exploitative propaganda.

    >* In trade, no force is involved. *

    Wrong again Girma, trade is influenced by power imbalance. When significant power differentials exists, the force of unequal power dominates trade. The powerful are the price setters weak get to take it or starve. The rich also have unequal access to the force of law, they have more resources to intimidate the poor, they can purchase more legal representation, and they can purchase political influence. Also, the rich belong to the same elite class as the judiciary. Hence the judiciary in some cases is at risk of seeing their own self interest lying with the rich. The counter balance to this power differential is democracy!

    >*The only force is in government legislation. ..*

    Wrong, see above. But worse, the power imbalance can lead to [state-capture]( http://www.answers.com/topic/state-capture). State-capture being were the force of government is disproportionately controlled not by the Demos, but by those with concentrated power. Evidence of state capture is industry-governmnt [revolving door ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)).

    >*How can I exploit someone if I persuade (not force) him to come to my lunch bar to buy junk food? Janet, that person has the option of buying or not buying, there is no force involved. There is no exploitation. Exploitation is when force is involved.*

    Girma there are many forms of force involved (as I’ve hinted at above) force of competition:

    -if I don’t exploit the kids with this propaganda I’ll be forced out of my house, I’ll be forced to give-up my health care, I’ll be forced onto the street.

    -If I don’t take this corporate donation I’ll be forced out of office when they instead fund the opposition.

    -If I make this legal ruling, I and my colleagues will be forced to lose some of our power and privilege, I will be forced into excommunication.

    -If I don’t kill the street cars I’ll be forced to buy a less expensive yaucht.

    -If I don’t kill the electric car I be forced to sell my jet

    -If I don’t buy the rights to the advanced NiMH battery I’ll be forced to cut oil drilling wages.

    -If I don’t dump toxic waste in poor countries I’ll be forced to cleanup are processes and lose profits.

    -If I don’t control (hang) Ken Sarawewa , Royal Dutch Shell will not be able to fund my regime and the people of Niger Delta will no longer be as easy to force into suppression. I will be force out of power.

    You need to open your eyes.

    >*I have looked at the science. I am convinced with my all being that the consensus that CO2 is causing global warming is wrong. ..[blaah, blaah…]

    Oh so now you have relented and finally read Pravda?

    You are not a credible advocate Girma.

    Now answer Bernard’s questions.

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    September 22, 2009

    Great post Janet. You have encapsulated the way I think entirely. Sharon Beder has just written an excellent book detailing how corporations target young children through advertising.

    Her earlier book, Global Spin, is equally outstanding. Girma`s view of the world is at the level of a comic book in terms of depth. He does not know much if anything about the power structures and free market absolutism that dominate the planet and concentrate power and wealth. He knows little about the ways in which governments that are beholden to commercial elites have forced conditions of trade onto developing countries in order to plunder their resources and open them up to western corporations. I have read a lot of declassified planning documents over the past 10 years through authors such as Mark Curtis that brazenly expose the agenda of western governments and multinational corporations.

    Girma lives in a world of make-believe. As Bernard said yesterday, note how when he is cornered statistically he goes off on rants about the virtues of Ayn Rand and her stupid philosophies. He has not addressed Bernard`s points because they demolish his so-called calculations.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    You have not yet answered the question [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865).

    Would you care to do so now?

    AND FURTHER TO THIS, IF YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH [THIS GRAPH](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg), WOULD YOU CONCEDE THAT THERE IS WARMING?

  10. #10 zoot
    September 23, 2009

    Come on Girma, please answer Bernard’s questions.

  11. #11 Girma
    September 23, 2009

    I shall return with detailed solutions to GENUINE questions.

    Cheers

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    September 23, 2009

    *I shall return with detailed solutions to GENUINE questions*

    Good, and while you are at it, Girma, please do not make any more GENUINELY stupid comments. OK?

  13. #13 Dave
    September 23, 2009

    > I shall return

    (cue evil laughter, swish of cape, twirl of handlebar moustache…)

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2009

    Girma Orssengo promises:

    I shall return with detailed solutions to GENUINE questions.

    In case you are insinuating that my questions are not genuine, let me assure you that they most certainly are.

    So, once more…

    1) You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are obviously incapable, either through lack of skill or from psychological block, or from both, of pursuing the [recommended construction of a frequency histogram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531). For your benefit I constructed such a histogram, and if may be found [here](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg).
    Are you able to comment on the distribution?

    2) More importantly, you have still not yet answered the question [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865).

    Would you care to do so now?

    3a) And most specifically, I am very interested to know, if you were presented with [this graph](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg), whether would you concede that there is warming? 3b) If so, why; if not, why not?

    4) You now have an additional piece of homework – can you apply the questions in the previous paragraph to [this graph](http://tinypic.com/3ia22sfk)?

    These are not trick questions Orssengo. A first year science undergraduate should be able to answer them, let alone a Masters or a PhD graduate. It should take all of 5 minutes to type a suitable answer.

  15. #15 Tim Curtin is a Joke
    September 23, 2009

    Shorter Tim Wells:

    I assert it is not warming. I need nothing more.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2009

    While you have all been arguing ferociously,have you looked outside recently?Apparently global temperatures are falling,sea levels are stable,ice-caps are growing,and the birds are singing.So would someone mind giving me directions to the climate catastrophe?

    There is no point trying to give directions or explanations to someone whose head is so far up his arse that he could kiss his gall bladder.

    You’ve never actually met a scientific fact, have you…? At least, you’ve never met one into whose face you wouldn’t happily kick sand.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2009

    Hey Bernard,where did you get that rediculous graph from?

    If you can’t decipher the data timwells, you don’t deserve an explanation.

    There is a very pertinent point to it, but it is obviously escaping you. You really haven’t been able to follow the lessons in statisitics here, have you?

    I think it best that you just take your pygmy intellect and go sit in the bleachers.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2009

    Venom, huh?

    No, just impatience with a troll who does not have the scientific literacy to understand why his ‘facts’ are not such, whose inability to understand the statistical points of the “rediculous” [sic] graph” is indicative of complete non-acquaintance with the discipline of scientific analysis, and whose incapacity to use a space after commas and full-stops (periods for the USAdians) shows that he has not even attained a primary school level of literacy.

    If you think it venom, then you have a glass jaw indeed.

  19. #19 zoot
    September 23, 2009

    timwells, maybe you can answer Bernard’s questions; it appears Girma is not up to the task.

  20. #20 Dave
    September 23, 2009

    @tim “time waster” wells

    > I gave you 3 facts.

    No you didn’t, and you actually managed to *suck intelligence out of the world* with your vapid comments.

  21. #21 Tim Curtin is a Joke
    September 23, 2009

    Shorter Tim Wells:

    I prove facts by assertion. Evidence is not necessary. If you cannot deal with that you are just venom and full of bad days!

  22. #22 timwells
    September 23, 2009

    Gee,you too Dave?Vapid??I will have to look that one up.While I do,take another look at my facts.

  23. #23 Janet Akerman
    September 23, 2009

    Tim, have you got anything serious to offer? You are not very good at trolling. Start at the beginning of this thread and you might learn something from a master.

    Presently your nonsense is so absent of anything close to evidence that I’m already so quickly uninterested.

    Silly comments, silly attitude and silly transparent baiting. Silly timmy.

  24. #24 timwells
    September 23, 2009

    Hi Janet,hope you are attractive and intelligent.I really thought I had offered something serious those 3 real world observations.So far nobody seems to want challenge them.How about you?

  25. #25 Mark Byrne
    September 23, 2009

    Bernard, is it just me or did Tim Well just make Girma look sincere in comparison?

    What an infantile baiter!

    Tim but thanks for helping our growth to 2000 posts, even mindless empty assertions help to that ends.

  26. #26 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    Come on timmy, you’ve got to give us some facts

  27. #27 timwells
    September 23, 2009

    Alright guys,can we all just agree that there is no problem with the worlds climate?I mean givin that it was such a pleasant day here today on Koh Samui.

  28. #28 Tim Curtin is a Joke
    September 23, 2009

    I can’t hold up under the weight of facts that Tim Wells is able to assert without evidence.

    The new non-evidence based facts are now turning science on its head!

    Hurray for non-evidence its all the range in blog-science!

  29. #29 timwells
    September 23, 2009

    Hey Tim,those 3 facts were simple ones,but I was wondering if you could give us something to refute them?

  30. #30 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    Our first “fact”: timwells believes 94% humidity (and 26 degrees C) makes for a pleasant day.

  31. #31 Tim Curtin is a Joke
    September 23, 2009

    Boring, I don’t get out of bed for anything less than evidence. And I think your a time waster with empty assertions. So boring.

    Yaaawhn.

    Do some work for me tim.

  32. #32 timwells
    September 23, 2009

    Look all I did was ask directions to the climate catastrophe,and all I got was nasty,hurtful comments.How about this.There is no convincing correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.There,happy now?

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2009

    Mark Byrne.

    Nah, it’s not just you!

    Going back to the statistical matter at hand, it’s interesting that Orssengo has suddenly gone quiet. I do hope that he answers [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1957529), and a subsequent one that is currently held in moderation.

    I know that the gadfly won’t be able to.

  34. #34 Tim Curtin is a Joke
    September 23, 2009

    Yawwhn,

    See above.

  35. #35 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    Awww – now we’ve hurt his feelings.

  36. #36 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    How about this.There is no convincing correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.

    That’s a bit rich coming after 1900 comments on the topic with many of them pointing out the scientific evidence for the correlation.

    timmy, you’ll have to do better than that – no elephant stamp for you.

  37. #37 timwells
    September 23, 2009

    cmmnts??s tht n rgmnt frm thrt r s t “cnsnss”?Whchvr t s,vdnc t s nt.

  38. #38 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    Umm, no timmy. It’s a catalogue of the evidence against your position.

  39. #39 bluegrue
    September 23, 2009

    #1875 Girma

    Can’t you even get your attributions right? You quote verbatim from a speech by [Peter Schwartz](http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6160&news_iv_ctrl=1225), ___not___ Ayn Rand, even if it’s hosted on that site. Doesn’t make that drivel any less wrong.

  40. #40 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    OK,so give us what you would consider to be the best piece of evidence you have in regards to the correlation thing.

    What don’t you understand? You have read the thread haven’t you?

  41. #41 Dave
    September 23, 2009

    >1900 comments??Is that an argument from authority or is it “consensus”?Whichever it is,evidence it is not.

    lol, poor effort. See that thing on the side of your browser? That’s called a *scrollbar*. You can use it to go up and down and read all the nice comments.

    I love the reasoning that *if* you don’t post an accurate and detailed summary of *every* piece of corroborating evidence gathered in the last century or two in direct response to a *completely* content free little belch of a blog comment, therefore any previous comments on that matter do not in fact exist, and from that we can conclude that the evidence itself does not exist.

    Its the *lazy anthropic principle* in action – “I cannot be bothered to find evidence, and even when spoonfed said evidence I find it too hard to concentrate and digest, therefore that evidence does not exist.”

  42. #42 timwells is an arrogant ignoramus
    September 23, 2009

    timwells:

    Apparently global temperatures are falling

    Sure, if you say so.

  43. #43 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    I started reading the thread but it is huge.Can you help by giving this evidence that you speak of?

    No.
    If you are sincerely interested in engaging in a scientific discussion you’ll do the work (like the rest of us) and read the arguments.
    Of course if you’re just a troll you’ll keep asking us to spoonfeed you.

  44. #44 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    OK so lets say that at the moment they are either stable or falling slightly.

    No.
    Let’s accept the measurements (which show a warming trend).

  45. #45 Dave
    September 23, 2009

    > By that I mean the most convincing bit in regards to CO2 vs temp correlation.

    “Hey Darwin, I know you wrote a big long book and all, but can you just give me the evidence because though I haven’t read it I think you’re full of it cos I look nothing liek a monkey lol. By that I mean the most convincing bit in regards to fossils and stuff like that. kthxbye.”.

  46. #46 timwells is a joke
    September 23, 2009

    OK,how about this.Warming started atleast 200 years ago.We have had warming and cooling since

    Not even close.
    Read the thread. Follow the links (you can safely ignore Girma’s).

  47. #47 Dave
    September 23, 2009

    > OK,how about this.Warming started atleast 200 years ago.We have had warming and cooling since and It is not obvious or demonstrable that CO2 was the cause of any of it.Any takers?

    “Hey Darwin, me again – been busy watching a dog to see if it turned into a cat. Still haven’t read your work by the way, which means it doesn’t exist hahaha I think it is not obvious or demonstrable that evolution happens at all, prove me wrong lol”.

  48. #48 Girma
    September 23, 2009

    TO ALL OF MY DEAR FRIENDS AT DELTOID

    With malice toward none & charity for all, I herby declare that the residual of the mean global temperature is a normal distribution with a correlation coefficient of 0.9923.

    According to an [article]( http://www.decisionsciences.org/decisionline/vol29/29_1/class_29_1.pdf) by Rick Hesse, Professor of quantitative methods at Pepperdine University in the Grazidia Graduate school of Business, we can draw a Normal Probability Plot as a graphical technique for assessing whether or not a data set is normally distributed. The sample data are plotted against a theoretical normal distribution (Z-values) resulting in a straight line, if the sample data is normally distributed. The procedure to draw the normal probability plot is described [here]( http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wrstephe/stat496/normplot.pdf).

    [Data used to draw the Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlotData.htm)

    [Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)

    According to Professor Hesse, If the sample data is somewhat close to being normally distributed, the data points should lie approximately on the trend line, with the line crossing the axis Z-value = 0 at about the mean. In the normal probability plot above, the data points pass through Z-value = 0 at the residual and mean value of zero.
    As a result, there is excellent agreement between most of the sample data and the normal distribution.

    Professor Hesse also states that if the data is somewhat close to being normally distributed, the reciprocal of the slope of the trend line should be close to the standard deviation of the data. In the normal probability plot above, the slope of the trend line is 6.60, and the reciprocal of this value is 1/6.6 = 0.15, which is the standard deviation I calculated in previous posts. As a result, a change in mean global temperature by 2σ = 0.6 deg C in a couple of decades is normal.

    However, the normal probability plot shows that the mean global temperature was abnormal for 1911. Global temperature was disturbed before 1911. I leave the explanation of this abnormality to climate scientists and geologists. As far as we are concerned, this event occurred 98 years ago and it does not concern us. The good news is that, the temperature for 1998 was normal, and there is no sign of abnormality at the high temperature region of the plot. No CO2 signature.

    My friends, all of you, for bringing this peaceful news, don’t I deserve a visit to Oslo? It will be a joint one between us at Deltoid. But, before we go there, you have to renounce the theory that “CO2 drives global temperature”. If you don’t, we all miss out. Think about it? I will be the first African to receive it and we will all share it! As English is my second language, I cannot deliver the lecture, so we would select either Jeff or Bernard to deliver the speech, as they are never short of words. I will take a different airplane from that of Bernard, Jeff, Chris, Mark, Gaz, Michael, Bluegrue, Dave, Lee, Zoot, Badger3k, Steve & Sod. We don’t need incidents aborad the airplane. I will take the same airplane as Mark Byrne and Janet, if they allow me. Do you think there is any chance for a paper at Nature? I don’t, as science has become political.

    CHEERS

  49. #49 Girma
    September 23, 2009

    sorry

    4σ = 0.6

  50. #50 bluegrue
    September 23, 2009

    To quote Prof. Rick Hesse:

    >These plots are a ___quick and dirty___ visual graphing technique to “see” if a data set exhibits the properties of a normal distribution.

    I think this aptly describes your modus operandi.

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2009
  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    September 23, 2009

    *As English is my second language, I cannot deliver the lecture, so we would select either Jeff or Bernard to deliver the speech, as they are never short of words*

    Girma, what is your first language? Ignorance or stupidity?

    Moreover, given your stubborn arrogance, I would like you to list, in no particular order, how many scientific conferences and workshops you have attended where climate change and its effects on the environment have been subjects of discussion. You see, since its clear to all here that you are a neophyte (putting it kindly) in the fields of climate and environmental science, I would not want to waste my time sharing a venue with you, let alone a platform.

    Finally, will you or will you not answer Bernard`s questions!!!!?

  53. #53 zoot
    September 23, 2009

    The questions Girma; please answer the questions.

  54. #54 Mark Byrne
    September 24, 2009

    Sounds like a jolly fun trip Girma, on what basis did Janet and I get bestowed with such an honor?

    And don’t you think you should address Bernard’s questions?

  55. #55 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    Dear All

    Note that the Z-values in the Normal Probability Plot are the numbers of standard deviations. As a result, nearly all the residuals of the mean global temperatures lie between +/- 3σ. Nearly all mean global temperatures records for 159 years lie on a straight line. Just magic.

    Move over the hockey stick. Here comes the baseball bat.

  56. #56 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    Dear All

    Note that the Z-values in the Normal Probability Plot are the numbers of standard deviations. As a result, nearly all the residuals of the mean global temperatures lie between σ = +/-3.

    Nearly all mean global temperatures records for 159 years lie on a straight line.

    Just magic.

    Move over the hockey stick. Here comes the baseball bat.

  57. #57 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    Mark Byrne @1954

    You wrote, Sounds like a jolly fun trip Girma, on what basis did Janet and I get bestowed with such an honor?

    I am sure you know it. In a foot ball field, you mostly concentrate on the ball.

  58. #58 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    Mark Byrne

    You wrote, Sounds like a jolly fun trip Girma, on what basis did Janet and I get bestowed with such an honor?

    I am sure you know it.

    In a football field, you mostly concentrate on the ball.

  59. #59 zoot
    September 24, 2009

    You still haven’t answered Bernard’s questions.

    Girma, please answer the questions.

  60. #60 Michael
    September 24, 2009

    Girma:

    Note that the Z-values in the Normal Probability Plot are the numbers of standard deviations. As a result, nearly all the residuals of the mean global temperatures lie between +/- 3σ

    How fucking stupid are you?

  61. #61 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    The GENUINE question by Bernard was that at Post 1868:

    However, the most contentious point on which Orssengo shows no capacity for instruction, is that one cannot utilise mean/standard deviation calculations, in the manner that Orssengo did, when the data are not normally (id est, Guassian) distributed.

    I did not have the answer then, but I have given a devastatingly convincing answer at post 1948.

    Thanks Bernard.

  62. #62 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    [Momentum on Climate Pact Is Elusive]( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=1)

    A clearer view of whether the recent temperature plateau undermines arguments for dangerous climate change in the long run should come in a few years, as the predictions made by the British climate researchers are tested. Their paper appeared in a supplement to an August issue of The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

    While the authors concluded that there was a 1 in 8 chance of having a decade-long pause in warming like the current plateau, even with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, the odds of a 15-year pause, they wrote, are only 5 in 100. As a result, the next few years of observations could tip the balance toward further concern or greater optimism.

    Meanwhile, social scientists who study the way people understand and respond to environmental problems say it is not surprising that the current temperature stability has created confusion and apathy.

    Thanks New York Times!

  63. #63 Michael
    September 24, 2009

    Girma is to statistics what Mahmoud Ahmedinajad is to quiet diplomacy.

  64. #64 zoot
    September 24, 2009

    There were genuine questions from Bernard at comment 1914.

    Girma, please answer the questions.

  65. #65 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    You seem to be struggling with the concept of what constitutes a genuine question. I will give you an up-front hint immediately, before I proceed with anything else – a “genuine question” is not simply one that you want to answer to the exclusion of all others, especially those that are inconvenient to your ideologies.

    A genuine question is one that requires the addressing of statistical points that are essential prerequisites to the conduct of the sort of analysis that you imagine that you are undertaking. It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that you are not addressing these points, and in so avoiding these same points you are demonstrating to the world at large that you don’t understand what it is that you are doing.

    So, starting from the beginning again…

    You originally referred to the [HadCRUT3 mean annual global temperature anomaly](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) dataset. These data [are not normal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419). They are in fact [skewed to higher temperatures, and have a polymodal distribution](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg).

    Your dismissal of this was based on your ‘subtraction’ of a ‘linear warming trend’ from the HadCRUT data so that you obtained a set of residuals between the original data and his regression line. An interesting manoeuvre, but one that is fraught with danger, as was pointed out by a number of posters on the thread, because there is no evidence (nor is there any a priori assumption) that CO2-forced warming is linear. You were pressed on this several times, but you avoided answering: so, Girma Orssengo, how do you justify your insistence that the warming over the last century and a half is linear?

    Note also that if the warming is not linear (and science predicts – and shows – that it isn’t), then your ‘linear subtraction’ biases the progressively more recent residuals against the identification of human CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming. What checks have you performed to ascertain that you are not biasing your ‘analysis’ against human contributions to warming in recent years?

    Which leads me on to my next point – how do you know that none of the warming that you ‘subtracted out’ is anthropogenic in origin? Remember, by taking out the warming signal you are saying that “once the warming signal is removed, there is no warming”. Exactly how does this work, and how does it exonerate human emissions as a cause?

    And before you say something to the effect that you ‘only’ removed (without any supporting evidence) ‘natural’ warming, can you demonstrate that your ‘linear subtraction’ does not actually alter the capacity to discern the various forcings of warming/cooling in the residuals? (Note: your struggle to prove the normality of the residuals is not important here, as is my struggle to elicit a statistical justification for the claim of normality. I am frustrated though that you still haven’t managed to progress past a z-plot – this wasn’t a difficult exercise Orssengo, but you have done your best to make it one. A z-plot is better than wobbly reference curves and eye-balled “excellent matches”, but no prize yet…)

    Next, we get to your ridiculous refusal to address the significance of the statistical parameters of the two hypothetical distributions [here](http://i33.tinypic.com/2dvkcqu.jpg). This most certainly is a “genuine question”, and it is telling that you refuse to answer it.

    I am also most curious about whether you would say there is warming evidenced in a trajectory that looked like [this](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg). This also is a “genuine question”, and your entire credibility can be shot on this one point alone. Will you answer the question: would you accept that this trajectory indicates warming, and why would you do so?

    As I have said before, I could go on for paragraphs yet, and revisit many points that I have raised. However I’ll save these for the future, because you will simply avoid them if I throw too many at you at once.

    Before I finish though, I would remind you of my [points 2 through to 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531), and ask yet again why you do not consider them relevant when applying your ‘analysis’ to show that there are no “[abnormal temperatures](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109)” in the last 159 years.

    Why are these points:

    2) the global mean temperature data are not independent;

    3) they are not randomly distributed;
    4) they are autocorrelated;
    5) they are time-series data

    not essential to your consideration of temperature trends since 1850?

  66. #66 luminous beauty
    September 24, 2009

    Girma,

    >As a result, a change in mean global temperature by 2σ = 0.6 deg C in a couple of decades is normal.

    Would it not be more accurate to say a multi-decadal variance of approximately ±0.3C from the [linear mean since 1850](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure2MyAnomalyPaper.gif) is expected?

    Given a slope in the linear mean of 0.0044C/yr. since 1850 gives us a net positive variance of ~0.7C over the last 160 years, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that over the longer term, present day temperatures have exceeded expected variability by about 0.4C?

  67. #67 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    Luminious beauty @1965

    Excellent question.

    From my result for the [linear component]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure1MyAnomalyPaper.gif) of mean global temperature anomaly, we have

    1) Linear component of anomaly in deg C = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52

    2) As the oscillating component of the anomaly is [normally distributed]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), almost all of them must lie under +/- 3s = +/-0.45 deg C.

    From these two results, the above model, we have for the maximum and minimum mean global temperature the following relationships:

    Maximum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C

    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52+0.45
    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.07

    Minimum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C

    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52-0.45
    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97

    No unnatural global temperature shift has occurred if the mean global temperature, for any particular year, lies between the above maximum and minimum values.

    Let us check the above model against the know picks of recorded anomalies.

    From temperature records, 1878 was a pick, and from the above model we have:

    Maximum mean global temperature anomaly for 1878 = 0.05 deg C.

    The actual measured anomaly for 1878 was –0.02 deg C, so comparing this with the maximum normal value of 0.05 deg C shows it is normal.

    From temperature records, 1998 was another pick, and from the above model we have:

    Maximum mean global temperature anomaly for 1998 = 0.58 deg C.

    The actual measured anomaly for 1998 was 0.53 deg C, so comparing this with the maximum normal value of 0.58 deg C shows it is normal.

    Let us calculate, using Orssengo’s mean global temperature anomaly model, the normal anomaly ranges for this year of 2009.

    Maximum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.07 = 0.63 deg C.
    Minimum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97 = 0.27 deg C.
    Mean anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52 = 0.18 deg C.

    As a result, for normal mean global temperature anomaly, the anomaly for this year of 2009 must lie between –0.27 and +0.63 deg C, with a mean of +0.18 deg C.

    CHEERS

  68. #68 Michael
    September 24, 2009

    Girma, you’ll go blind if you keep doing that.

  69. #69 Girma
    September 24, 2009

    Correction for post at @1966

    Minimum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97 = 0.27 deg C.
    Minimum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97 = -0.27 deg C.

  70. #70 luminous beauty
    September 24, 2009

    Girma,

    >1) Linear component of anomaly in deg C = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52

    I believe the -0.52C is the linear mean value of 1850 relative to the arithmetic mean of the baseline period of 1961 – 1990 used by HadCRU.

    I haven’t a clue what it is you are trying to demonstrate with this comparison, but don’t you think it would be more accurate to use the arithmetic mean of the entire time series which is about 0.17C lower relative to the 1961 – 1990 average.

    I’ll let you correct your own arithmetic, but I am unclear why the [Z-scores relative to the linear mean](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure2MyAnomalyPaper.gif) are not sufficient indicators of the oscillation component of which you speak.

    Can you explain?

  71. #71 Mark Byrne
    September 25, 2009

    How to straighten a Banana?

    Notice when one tries to straighten a banana, that the trend at two ends of the banana, different to the [trend in the middle](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/trend).

    Consequently the distribution from the mean is not random, instead the spread from the middle [is time dependent](http://i37.tinypic.com/2ppymgh.jpg).

    This is why Girma has been informed that he is using inappropriate statistics with inappropriate assumptions

  72. #72 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    Bernard J @1965, Mark Byrne @1970

    You have asked me questions. Before I respond to them I want to find out where we stand now.

    Do you agree or disagree that when the mean global anomaly temperature is separated into a linear (time dependent) component and an oscillating (time independent) component called residuals, the [residuals](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif) are found to be normally distributed?

  73. #73 zoot
    September 25, 2009

    Girma, why won’t you just answer Bernard’s questions?
    Is it because you don’t understand them?

  74. #75 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    To All & Bernard

    At post 1868, you asked me the following question:

    However, the most contentious point on which Orssengo shows no capacity for instruction, is that one cannot utilise mean/standard deviation calculations, in the manner that Orssengo did, when the data are not normally (id est, Guassian) distributed.

    Bernard, have I answered the above question of yours?

    The story of mean global temperature anomaly are TWO lines. One is the linear warming (time dependent) value of Mean Anaomaly in deg C = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52, and the other is a time independent line in the [Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif).

    In this normal probability plot, the residual temperatures had more fun for 159 years sliding up and down an inclined plane.

    If the temperature can slide down an inclined plane from 1887 to 1911, what is wrong for it to climb up the same inclined plane from 1976 to 1998?

    Is it the case that downward mobility is okay, but upward is not?

    Cheers

  75. #76 Janet Akerman
    September 25, 2009

    Girma,

    Perhaps throw some more Rand in, to distract from the fact that you are still failing to answer Bernard’s questions, and failing to accept your assumption of normal distribution is inappropriate on [prerequisites 2 through 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1960843).

  76. #77 luminous beauty
    September 25, 2009

    Girma,

    >Maximum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C

    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52+0.45
    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.07

    >Minimum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C

    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52-0.45
    = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97

    >No unnatural global temperature shift has occurred if the mean global temperature, for any particular year, lies between the above maximum and minimum values.

    You are adding the trend to the variability relative to the trend and concluding there is no trend, is that correct?

  77. #78 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    Janet and “the CO2 driven AGW” camp, which appears to be the whole of the world.

    Answers to Bernard’s questions

    2) the global mean temperature data are not independent

    It is true that the global mean temperature data are not independent.
    However, I separated it into two components, one is a dependant linear warming component, and the other is an independent residual component. The residuals are independent because they are normally distributed.

    3) they are not randomly distributed

    the linear warming is not randomly distributed; but the residual is, as it is normally distributed.

    4) they are autocorrelated

    the linear warming is autocorrelated; but the residual is not, as it is normally distributed.

    5) they are time-series data

    the linear warming is time-series data; but the residual is not, as it is normally distributed.

  78. #79 Bernard J.
    September 25, 2009

    A chronology.

    Girma Orssengo.

    At [#1755](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) you refer to HadCRUT3 anomaly data to claim your nonsense about no “abnormal temperatures”. I pointed out at [#1783](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419) that the temperature/anomaly data are not normal, and I pulled you up on the use of 6σ (99.73%) insignificance range that you employed, counter to the 95% convention.

    At this post I also started my querying about your ignorance of the fact that the data are not random, that they are autocorrelated, and that they are time-series. I repeated mention of these facts [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951072), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951266), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951698), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865), and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1960843), and early on in the piece I also indicated that the data were not independent.

    At [#1827](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951072), [#1831](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951266), and [#1835](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531) I repeated my observation about the non-normality of the mean annual global temperature/anomaly data, the last after you persisted in [saying (at #1833) that you had used](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951421) “[mean global temperature data](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomalyCumulativeFrequency.htm)”. I continued in pointing out the non-normality of the global temperature data at [#1839](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951698), where I indicated that looking at “a plot” is not “an excellent result”.

    I reminded you about time-series data in [the next post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951719).

    At [#1842](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865) I pointed out to you that your [original descriptive statistical ‘analysis’](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) was presented as representing the mean annual global temperature data, and not the ‘sorted residual[s]’. At this point I reminded you to check the normality of the temperature data, and I asked you to comment on the analysis of two hypothetical datasets.

    At [#1857](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1953841) I used a cumulative frequency distribution (after having referred numerous times to specific normality tests) to show that the temperature data were not normal, and I pointed out that Orssengo’s ‘predicted’ normal cumulative frequency curve was not smooth, as would be expected. I also mentioned that he should not be surprised to find that the mean of a group of residuals is zero…

    Things get tricky at [#1868](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1954374), where I repeated the previous point about the normality of the temperature data, and also indicated that Orssengo’s ‘residuals’, when plotted with a 90% confidence band (because up to this point Orssengo was using ‘looks’ as his analysis), fell beyond the 90% band at several points.

    Note carefully Girma Orssengo that I did not say that this peculiar dataset of yours was not normal… I did say:

    …as for the rest of the datapoints, the way they snake between and approach both confidence intervals should make any thinking person seriously wonder about the normality (or otherwise) of the data.

    in an attempt to draw your attention to my very next paragraph that:

    [t]his is why we perform specific tests for normality. Even squinting at two trajectories (observed and expected) on a graph, and even if the confidence band is not escaped, one has not objectively quantified the probability that the data are normal.

    so that you might actually consider performing such a test yourself, rather than using your “excellent match” eyeballing technique.

    Revisiting old ground, at [#1897](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1955994) I queried you again on the use of 3σ, and asked you again to consider the hypothetical graphs [here](http://i33.tinypic.com/2dvkcqu.jpg) and [here]( http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg).

    Consistent with all previous queries, there was no response from Orssengo.

    I reminded you of the question about the hypothetical distributions at [#1909](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865), at [#1914](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1957963), at [#1933](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1958285), at [#1951]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1960055), and at [#1965](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1960843).

    And interspersed between my repeated requests for your answers were similar requests from many other commenters.

    Whew!

    Frustratingly, up to the point at which I am typing this post, you have yet to demonstrate that you can conduct a specific test for normality. You finally produced a z-plot after all of this prodding, but a z-plot itself does not give a statistical estimation of normality – it only plots a representation.

    More frustratingly, you are fixated on the normality of your residuals, which, for many reasons covered by the large number of questions that you have ignored thus far, are irrelevant to your [original claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) that the [HadCRU 1850-2008 mean annual global temperature data](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) show “no sign for [sic] any abnormal temperature”.

    So, once and for all, can you address the questions linked ad nauseum here, and justify your original comment about there being no abnormal temperatures in the last 159 years? I note that you have now provided answers of sorts to the points “2 through to 5″, but not to any of the others above.

    However, even your answers to the 2-5 points are fatally flawed… as this post is already too long, I will leave you to contemplate why and perhaps redeem a shred of your dignity before I or someone else calls you on this batch of howlers.

    Be warned Orssengo – I have from my own field-work examples of normally distributed data (in the way that you define it) that fails every one of points 2 through to 5.

    Time to start answering some questions.

  79. #80 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    Luminous beauty

    What I mean is that the variation in temperature between the
    Maximum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.07 and Minimum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97 is caused by natural
    variations such as Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic
    Multidecadal Oscillation and ENSO.

  80. #81 Dave
    September 25, 2009

    It really does beggar belief. I mean, come on Girma – just take a moment to think about what you’re saying, and it obviously fails basic sanity checks.

    eg.

    > the linear warming is autocorrelated; but the residual is not, as it is normally distributed.

    You’re saying that the mean of every annual temperature is independent of any other? That the only correlation between two adjacent annual means is your so-called linear trend?

    You do realise that – on a very basic level – you just ruled out solar activity as having any measurable effect on global temperature, don’t you?

  81. #82 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    Bernard

    Girma Orssengo, how do you justify your insistence that the warming over the last century and a half is linear?

    Bernard, honestly, with out the invisible magnifying glass, does not this [temperature versus year plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:13.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:13.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.01/compress:12) looks linear?

  82. #83 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    Dear All

    Could someone please confirm or disprove my results so far. Here are all the relevant data and results.

    [Data source from WoodForTrees.org.]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend)

    Equation used: Residual = Anomaly – Linear Warming Component of Anomaly

    [Data used for analysis]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureAnomalyData.htm)

    [Frequency Histogram]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureAnomaly.gif)

    [Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)

    [Data used for the above plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlotData.htm)

    Result: Almost all the residuals lie within +/-3s = +/0.45 deg C from the mean. As a result, climate change due to increase or decrease in mean global temperature of 0.9 deg C in a couple of decades is normal.

    Cheers

  83. #84 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    Dave

    You do realise that – on a very basic level – you just ruled out solar activity as having any measurable effect on global temperature, don’t you?

    Dave, a variation of +/0.45 deg C over a uniform warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years envelopes all recorded change in mean global temperature anomaly.

  84. #85 Dave
    September 25, 2009

    > Dave, a variation of +/0.45 deg C over a uniform warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years envelopes all recorded change in mean global temperature anomaly.

    You clearly don’t understand what I’m getting at and you’re contradicting yourself.

    What you are saying is that there is a linear warming trend (which you’re wrong about but lets overlook that for now), and once eliminated there is no relationship remaining between two adjacent annual means.

    Which – for starters – would mean that all of your talk about a residual multi-decadal oscillation was wrong, because an underlying oscillation would mean the values are autocorrelated.

    What you are saying is that we cannot have three coolish years in a row because of low solar activity. In fact that multi-year events that affect temperature do not exist.

  85. #86 t_p_hamilton
    September 25, 2009

    Girma sez:”Dave, a variation of +/0.45 deg C over a uniform warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years envelopes all recorded change in mean global temperature anomaly.”

    Variation in something uniform is an oxymoron.

    If what you are trying to say is that the data is within 0.45 degrees of a line with a slope of 0.44 deg C/century, your analysis is incompetent.

    Taking the temperature record that you say looks linear (LOL) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/to:2005/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/to:2005/trend

    includes a long period where the growth in CO2 was much smaller (10 ppm over 60 years). The data is up to 0.7 degrees away from this line, not 0.45.

    The recent rate is what is important, so look at warming since 1900. Slope 0.75 deg C / 100 yr, with +/- 0.5 degrees.

    Climatically significant recent 30 year period, 1978-2008:
    Slope 1.6 deg C / 100 yr all values within 0.4 degree C of the linear fit.

  86. #87 Former Skeptic
    September 25, 2009

    As this post has almost 2000 comments, I actually got my word processor to do a word count up to t_p’s #1986 post…and it spewed out 214,870 words.

    Congratulations all, especially to Girma! You have written more words than Melville’s Moby Dick.

  87. #88 Badger3k
    September 25, 2009

    Former Skeptic – he’s written more words, but their basically just repeating the same chapter, over and over and over again, with a random meaningless quote thrown in for giggles here and there.

  88. #89 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983?

    Please, Please?

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

  89. #90 Girma
    September 25, 2009

    Former Skeptic @1987

    I just saved the whole trade as pdf, and it has 589 pages!

    What the unlucky-in-love do to pass their spare time!

  90. #91 Dave
    September 25, 2009

    > Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983?

    I know repeating yourself and ignoring rebuttals is your modus operandi, but seriously – you basically ignored Bernard’s questions and just stated that “the data is normal, it is, it is, a thousand times it is”.

    Again, for example, the data is autocorrelated *even if you take the completely unjustified step of removing some phantom, pre-emptively guesstimated linear trend from the whole set*.

    Most analysts would try to sort out the signal from the noise.

    You on the other hand are trying to guess what the signal might be, remove that speculative signal until you are just left with the noise (unsuccessfully so far), and finally when you believe you have subtracted the whole signal you’ll be able to declare that there is no signal, or that the signal is unimportant, or that it is somehow natural because you isolated the noise component, or something equally off the wall. Its… bizarre, to say the least.

  91. #92 Michael
    September 25, 2009

    Girma:

    Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983?
    Please, Please?

    Bernard has done this several times, but you just refuse to listen.

    At least now we know why you do this (besides your religious devotion to Randian nonsense) – it’s your only social outlet.

  92. #93 luminous beauty
    September 25, 2009

    Girma,

    >Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983? Please, Please?

    As has been attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, “That isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”

    A cursory glance at the OLS of the 1850 – 2008 HadCRU data should tell you it isn’t a meaningful regression of the data, as most of the data before about 1890 and after about 1980 being above the OLS would suggest it is in fact an accelerating upward trend, but even your analysis that there is a ±0.4C variability against that linear mean does not account for the cumulative +0.7C in that useless regression.

    As for suggesting the cause is from changes in oscillating oceanic phenomena, perhaps you’ve heard of something called the First Law of Thermodynamics. You would do well to try and understand it, or else stick to things you are good at, like masturbating to photos of Saint Ayn.

  93. #94 Bernard J.
    September 26, 2009

    Amongst the many unanswered questions put to him, Girma did not answer this:

    …given the statistical variance in the mean annual global temperature data for the last century and a half, what period of time is required to discern [from the noise] a signal of, say, 1.0C/century?

    which was asked, within a suite of similar questions, at [#1058](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1898952 ), at [#1153](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1904431), at [#1177](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1906335), at [#1287](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1909182 ), and at [#1309](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1910464).

    This is an important question, and a genuine question, as are the [associated questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1909182), and if Orssengo refuses to answer them he should at least explain why he does so.

    Another question that received no satisfactory response was [one that I posed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1924510) regarding the biotic and abiotic integration of climatic trends. You might deign to respond here Orssengo, and to assist you could do some homework and perhaps provide a detailed critique of the [Rosenzweig et al](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html) paper in Nature (453, 353-357), 15 may 2008.

    On a very prosaic note, you have not yet demonstrated that you are able to discern [weather from climate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1937752).

    Another area that you have not convincingly responded to were my questions regarding [resource limitation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1942310). Perhaps you might do so now?

    As to your question:

    Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983?

    if you read the numerous posts on this thread, and if you properly answer the questions in this and in previous threads such as [the one above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1962957), you would be able to disprove your own work yourself.

  94. #95 Girma
    September 26, 2009

    •••••••

    Dear All

    Here is Girma Orssengo’s prediction of [mean global temperature anomaly up to 2100]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)

    1. For year 2030, the anomaly will be about –0.1 deg C, a decrease of 0.6 deg C from the value for 1998.
    2. Until 2100, the maximum anomaly of 1998 will be exceeded only once by only about 0.1 deg around 2065.
    3. For year 2100, the anomaly will be about the same as the anomaly for 1998.
    4. For year 2100, the maximum increase in anomaly that is statistically possible is only 0.5 deg C greater than the anomaly value for 1998.

    CHEERS

  95. #97 Girma
    September 26, 2009

    Bernard,

    You wrote, on what evidence do you discount the large body of research that repeatedly connects such to unprecedented rates/magnitudes of temperature increase

    I don’t discount the increase in mean global temperature by about 0.7 deg C from 1976 to 1998. What I argue is that this is a natural increase, as natural was the decrease by similar amount from 1878 to 1911. An increase or decrease in mean global temperature under 0.9 deg C is natural, and we have to learn to adapt to it.

    In my [Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), we see the temperature decreased from 1878 to 1911 by moving to the left . In the same plot, the temperature increased from 1976 to 1998 by moving to the right. So, is it is okay to move to the LEFT, but not to the RIGHT? Is the issue political?

  96. #98 Dave
    September 26, 2009

    Girma,

    Your prediction is nonsense because the basis on which you make it has been shown to be utter garbage.

    You have picked an arbitrary start point (the start of the hadley data series) and forced a line from that point to the present day without any justification for doing so. Your only analysis is tautalogical.

    Please examine the [following graph](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend).

    You are artificially forcing a simpe linear trend on a dataset whose underlying behaviour is not linear.

    If you were correct I would be able to extract excactly the same linear trend as you at any point in the last century. However, going back from the present day to eg. 1950 in 20 year increments, you can see that the slope is different, and always higher.

    If 20 years ago you had come here and presented your analysis you would have been proven to be disastrously wrong in pretty short order.

    This is because you have invented a trend and tried to justify it retrospectively, rather than perform appropriate analysis to determine the actual trend. If you had looked any time before now *you would have found a different trend*.

    Oh, and ffs answer Bernard’s questions will you?

  97. #99 Bernard J.
    September 26, 2009

    Erm, “prediction”?!

    Do tell, Girma Orssengo, exactly what statistical ‘procedure’ you used to cobble together that load of garbage.

    And whilst I’m (still) asking questions, why do you believe that it appropriate that you sign your fantasy plots with “Girma Orssengo, PhD”? You demonstrate no competency in statistical analysis, you provide no rigorously referenced documentation for your ‘methodology’ and assumptions, and you have no training it climatological analysis to begin with.

    It beggars belief that you are so arrogant as to think that you have the right to suffix your name thus, on a (misconstructed) plot of material that you do not understand.

  98. #100 Bernard J.
    September 26, 2009

    Brilliant…

    I’ve just realised that this behemoth of a thread has now tipped 2000 posts, and Girma Orssengo still refuses to address the basic statisitical questions put to him.

    Orssengo, I have waited for weeks for any indication at all that you understand the first lessons that a new student of statisitcs and data analysis learns. You should no evidence of any such understanding – certainly not a coherent one – and yet you presume to deny the work of thousands of scientists and statisticians who have trained and worked for years, or even decades, with these techniques.

    You have cemented my [previous suspicions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1940691), and I suspect that you will never answer the dozens of questions put to you, because your brain is partitioning them away to avoid pathological cognitive dissonance.

    Or is it that you simply do not know the answers?

    If you feel so strongly about your [Nobel-worthiness](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1934088), you should post-haste post at [RealClimate](http://www.realclimate.org/) or at [Open Mind](http://tamino.wordpress.com/) and show those ‘supposed’ experts that they have it all grievously wrong.

    Please inform us when you do so, and especially when the professional scientists in climatological trend analysis capitulate and recognise your genius for what it is.

    Oh, and answer [the](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1962957) [questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1964372).

Current ye@r *